Recurrent Cardiogenic Syncope From Extrinsic Organ Anomaly.

CASE PRESENTATION: A 40-year-old woman presented with recurrent syncope. She reported multiple (>20) episodes of non-prodromal loss of consciousness, periodically provoked by physical exertion. One episode resulted in a nasal fracture due to the abrupt nature of her syncope. The characterization of each episode was inconsistent with a neurogenic seizure. Other causes of syncope (vasovagal, situational, carotid hypersensitivity, and orthostasis) were also deemed unlikely. On physical examination, a low-pitched, brief adventitious sound was appreciated after each S2 sound in the right lower sternal border. The remainder of the physical examination was unremarkable. Initial workup, including complete blood count, comprehensive metabolic panel, cardiac enzymes, and ECG yielded normal results. The chest radiograph did not show any gross cardiac or pulmonary parenchymal pathologic condition (Fig 1). Telemetry did not demonstrate any malignant arrhythmias, and video-guided EEG did not document any seizure activity.

The role of jet eccentricity in generating disproportionately elevated transaortic pressure gradients in patients with aortic stenosis.

In patients with aortic stenosis (AS) and eccentric transaortic flow, greater pressure loss occurs as the jet collides with the aortic wall together with delayed and diminished pressure recovery. This leads to the elevated transaortic valve pressure gradients noted on both Doppler and cardiac catheterization. Such situations may present a diagnostic dilemma where traditional measures of stenosis severity indicate severe AS, while imaging modalities of the aortic valve geometric aortic valve area (GOA) suggest less than severe stenosis. In this study, we present a series of cases exemplifying this clinical dilemma and demonstrate how color M-mode, 2D and 3D transthoracic (TTE) and transesophageal (TEE) echocardiography, cardiac computed tomography angiography (CTA), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), may be used to resolve such discrepancies.

Noninvasive assessment of pulmonary vascular resistance by Doppler echocardiography.

BACKGROUND: The ratio of tricuspid regurgitation velocity (TRV) to the time-velocity integral of the right ventricular outflow tract (TVIRVOT) has been studied as a reliable measure to distinguish elevated from normal pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR). The equation TRV/TVIRVOT × 10 + 0.16 (PVRecho) has been shown to provide a good noninvasive estimate of PVR. However, its role in patients with significantly elevated PVR (> 6 Wood units [WU]) has not been conclusively evaluated. The aim of this study was to establish the validity of the TRV/TVIRVOT ratio as a correlate of PVR. The role of TRV/TVIRVOT was also compared with that of a new ratio, TRV(2)/TVIRVOT, in patients with markedly elevated PVR (>6 WU). METHODS: Data from five validation studies using TRV/TVIRVOT as an estimate of PVR were compared with invasive PVR measurements (PVRcath). Multiple linear regression analyses were generated between PVRcath and both TRV/TVIRVOT and TRV(2)/TVIRVOT. Both PVRecho and a new derived regression equation based on TRV(2)/TVIRVOT: 5.19 × TRV(2)/TVIRVOT - 0.4 (PVRecho2) were compared with PVRcath using Bland-Altman analysis. Logistic models were generated, and cutoff values for both TRV/TVIRVOT and TRV(2)/TVIRVOT were obtained to predict PVR > 6 WU. RESULTS: One hundred fifty patients remained in the final analysis. Linear regression analysis between PVRcath and TRV/TVIRVOT revealed a good correlation (r = 0.76, P < .0001, Z = 0.92). There was a better correlation between PVRcath and TRV(2)/TVIRVOT (r = 0.79, P < .0001, Z = -0.01) in the entire cohort as well as in patients with PVR > 6 WU. Moreover, PVRecho2 compared better with PVRcath than PVRecho using Bland-Altman analysis in the entire cohort and in patients with PVR > 6 WU. TRV(2)/TVIRVOT and TRV/TVIRVOT both predicted PVR > 6 WU with good sensitivity and specificity. CONCLUSIONS: TRV/TVIRVOT is a reliable method to identify patients with elevated PVR. In patients with TRV/TVIRVOT > 0.275, PVR is likely > 6 WU, and PVRecho2 derived from TRV(2)/TVIRVOT provides an improved noninvasive estimate of PVR compared with PVRecho.

Aortic valve stenosis: to the gradient and beyond--the mismatch between area and gradient severity.

The clinical severity of aortic stenosis (AS) is based largely on symptoms. However, AS severity is primarily determined by estimating the aortic valve area (AVA) and pressure gradients (ΔP). Conditions may arise in which there is a mismatch in severity between AVA and ΔP determinations secondary to errors in measurement and/or assumption, alterations of flow, or variations in the magnitude of pressure recovery. The cause of discrepancy between area and gradient determinations must be deciphered so as to best counsel patients on the most ideal treatment strategy.